Scientific proof of flood.

[duordi]

No 'blood' has ever been found in a dinosaur bone.

Here is the site

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn7195

I am curious, now that you have found it to be true.

How hard would it be for you to accept that the accepted time scales are incorrect.

1 This is impossible for me to accept.

10 Hay, no problem as long as I have evidence.

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

No. they are put to the test every day....

but a change in the basic time scale is not possible without much trauma.

When Einstein suggested that straight was bent and time wasn't the same everywhere the scientific community when through a lot of trauma and some very smart men tried, and are still trying to prove him wrong.

That was because he was challenging the core beliefs and not just tweaking at the edges.

But his proposals were accepted within his own lifetime, quite quickly actually. How long are you suggesting that the age of the earth has been falsified?

He was of course hated with a passion at the time.

This is a new one for me. Yes, there were arguments over his theory, of course. But having an argument over a theory and hating someone are quite different things.

In the same way to suggest that a catastrophic event has occurred in the recent past will of course cause a tar and feathering.

Treatment in the forum is nothing compared to what happens in the real world.

The individual which dared to publish the information about the blood in the dinosaur bone, was of course fired.

She has more guts then I have.

Duane

No, she was not fired. As far as I know she is still working in paleontology, although I'm not sure where she is working nowadays. Nobody is fired in science for daring to publish something that is contrary to what was previously thought.

Besides, she has never published that what she saw was blood. IIRC, her first exclamation when she looked at the bones was: 'hey that looks like blood.' After researching it was shown that it was not blood. 'Looks like' does not equal 'is'.

Duane, why don't you give us the sources of your assertions. I'm quite certain that they are not telling the truth and if it is the same story I tracked down before, you have been lied to quite severely.

 

[Tomk80]

Ah, it is another story. However, no blood was found. From the article:

They also have found small red microstructures that resemble red blood cells.

That is something different from 'they have found red blood cells'. If that would have been the case, they would have said so. Also, you said she was fired? Are you talking about Schweitzer? She has quite a good track record, from my limited knowledge on paleontology, her name comes by quite often on these sort of things. Her bosses would be quite insane to fire her and as far as I can gather, she has not been.

 

[duordi]

that is untrue. Columbus and most educated people knew that the earth was round but the diameter, despite being calculated correctly in 200BC, was miscalculated by at least 1/3 by Columbus possibly deliberately....

see:
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm




...

Yes, you are right of course, Columbus did not make the journey until after the culture and beliefs changed.

Even at that point there were many who thought differently, like that he was going to fall off the edge of the world.

IN the same way during Einstiens time we could find information about people who were for and against the emerging thinking.

Duane

 

[notto]

Here is the site

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs/dn7195

I am curious, now that you have found it to be true.

No 'blood' has ever been found in a dinosaur bone. Now that you know the truth will you not repeat the claim or suggest that the researcher was fired? She wasn't.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, you are right of course, Columbus did not make the journey until after the culture and beliefs changed.

Even at that point there were many who thought differently, like that he was going to fall off the edge of the world.

IN the same way during Einstiens time we could find information about people who were for and against the emerging thinking.

Duane

Actually Eratosthenes (284-192 B.C) had calculated the circumference of the earth to better than 0.5%. Ptolomy did a later calculation and botched it coming up about 30% short. It was this number that led Columbus to think that he could make it.

FB

 

[duordi]

But his proposals were accepted within his own lifetime, quite quickly actually. How long are you suggesting that the age of the earth has been falsified?


This is a new one for me. Yes, there were arguments over his theory, of course. But having an argument over a theory and hating someone are quite different things.


No, she was not fired. As far as I know she is still working in paleontology, although I'm not sure where she is working nowadays. Nobody is fired in science for daring to publish something that is contrary to what was previously thought.

Besides, she has never published that what she saw was blood. IIRC, her first exclamation when she looked at the bones was: 'hey that looks like blood.' After researching it was shown that it was not blood. 'Looks like' does not equal 'is'.

Duane, why don't you give us the sources of your assertions. I'm quite certain that they are not telling the truth and if it is the same story I tracked down before, you have been lied to quite severely.

If it was not blood what was it?

"Palaeontologists have extracted soft, flexible structures that appear to be blood vessels from the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago. They also have found small red microstructures that resemble red blood cells."

It was checked microscopically.

The only reason it can't be blood is that it would mess up the current date estimates.

So what you are saying is that if it dosen't match your acceptded ideas then you are willing to reject scientific evidence to follow your beliefs.

Your faith is very strong and I admire you for that.
I think you may find that reality has a way of being very persistant.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Actually Eratosthenes (284-192 B.C) had calculated the circumference of the earth to better than 0.5%. Ptolomy did a later calculation and botched it coming up about 30% short. It was this number that led Columbus to think that he could make it.

FB

Yes, but the knowledge was lost during the dark ages.

Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, but the knowledge was lost during the dark ages.

Duane

Maybe that was because there were Christians who thought the Bible said the earth must be flat, leading to Christian Topography

FB

 

[duordi]

Ah, it is another story. However, no blood was found. From the article:



That is something different from 'they have found red blood cells'. If that would have been the case, they would have said so. Also, you said she was fired? Are you talking about Schweitzer? She has quite a good track record, from my limited knowledge on paleontology, her name comes by quite often on these sort of things. Her bosses would be quite insane to fire her and as far as I can gather, she has not been.

If it was not blood what was it?

"Palaeontologists have extracted soft, flexible structures that appear to be blood vessels from the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago. They also have found small red microstructures that resemble red blood cells."

It was checked microscopically.

The only reason it can't be blood is that it would mess up the current date estimates.

So what you are saying is that if it dosen't match your acceptded ideas then you are willing to reject scientific evidence to follow your beliefs.

Your faith is very strong and I admire you for that.
I think you may find that reality has a way of being very persistant.

Duane

 

[notto]

The only reason it can't be blood is that it would mess up the current date estimates.

What a crock. They didn't find any 'blood'. If they had, they would have published that they did and the find would have been more important that it already was. Suggesting what you do here shows how little you know about the scientists work and how scientists work in general.

They found blood compounds and preserved structures that once were 'blood'. No 'blood' has been found. Suggesting that intact blood was found is false.

So what you are saying is that if it dosen't match your acceptded ideas then you are willing to reject scientific evidence to follow your beliefs.

All I'm suggesting is that your claim is wrong, as the very article you pointed to shows. It seems thatyou are willing to hold on to a false claim (and make several more). I don't think you should be criticizing my objectivity. I'm not the one spreading false information about scientific evidence.

 

[Tomk80]

If it was not blood what was it?

I don't know. In any case, not blood, since then they would have said it was blood, wouldn't they?

"Palaeontologists have extracted soft, flexible structures that appear to be blood vessels from the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago. They also have found small red microstructures that resemble red blood cells."

It was checked microscopically.

Yes, and it resembles red blood cells. But you can see whether something is a red blood cell or not through a microscope, so if it would have been a red blood cell in stead of something resembling it, they would have stated so in the article.

The only reason it can't be blood is that it would mess up the current date estimates.

No, the reason it was not blood is because it was not blood. Again, you can recognize whether something is a blood cell (not blood, blood is a mixture of blood cells (red and white) and proteins) under a microscope. So if they state in the article that is was a microstructure resembling a red blood cell, it was not blood or they would have said so, wouldn't they? My best guess is that it was a protein encapsulement with traces of heme on it. Heme contains the iron that is present in blood cells, which gives it a red color. The microstructure (not, microstructure, not cell) will probably be something embedded in the 'soft, flexible structure'. I have no idea what this structure is made of, my best guess is that it is formed by protein chains. I'll have to track down the actual article to maybe be able to tell more about it, if it isn't too complicated for me to follow.

But again, a red microstructure resembling red blood cells is not the same as red blood cells. They haven't written that they found red blood cells, that is something you are making up, not something that is stated in the article.

So what you are saying is that if it dosen't match your acceptded ideas then you are willing to reject scientific evidence to follow your beliefs.

No, I'm saying that if they would have found red blood cells, they would have written that they had found red blood cells in the article. That really shouldn't be that hard to follow, should it?

Your faith is very strong and I admire you for that.
I think you may find that reality has a way of being very persistant.

Duane

I think that you may find that actually thoroughly reading an article has nothing to do with faith, but everything with reading.

 

[duordi]

You first say that the iridium layer marks the flood. We know that there was much sediment below that and there is much sediment above that. We can see no difference above or below with regards to the rate of sediment accumulation. Where is the evidence of the flood in all of this?

Why in the world would you think that the layers below the flood would form any different then afterwards.

The during the flood part might be kind of complicated though.

At what rate did the sediment below the iridium layer accumulate? Why can't we see this flood evidence above and below the iridum layer? Why does it all look like it was layed down by the same processes we see accumulating sediment and causing erosion today?

What would you expect to be different?

And there are differences.

Be aware the I asked these questions myself.

You may not want to find what you will find.

What specific evidence of the flood does the iridium layer provide? How do we know it was an effect of the flood? What leads you to that conclusion?

The best explaination I have heard which explains the iridium layer is a meteor strike.

The Earth went through some geological turmoil and radioactive materials were dispersed on the Earths surface.

The expected results are earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, and atmospheric climatic changes.

Oh, and a lot of dead things all at once.

My personal opnion was developed after looking a the meteor impact distribution at this site.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html


Notice that the meteor impacts are not random, indicating the concentrated impacts are part of a single event.

The estimated equivalent megaton total from the meteor creator record is about 12,000 times the current nuclear arsenal of the world.

The next question of course is what does an event of this sort do to the slow gradual assumptions normally applied to Earth history theory.

Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have their 1999 paper where the authors discuss the microstructures they observed.



Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex Authors: Schweitzer, Mary Higbya; Horner, John R.b Annales de Paleontologie Vol: 85, Issue: 3, July - September, 1999 pp. 179-192

Abstract:

Histological analyses of trabecular tissue from the limb bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex revealed the presence of small (average 25 μm) round microstructures in the vascular channels of the bone. These bony tissues otherwise evidenced minimal diagenetic change, and no secondary mineral deposition was observed in the vessel channels. While we have published analyses of the bony tissues of this specimen, we have not published data obtained on these small intravascular microstructures. Several characteristics link these microstructures to endogenous biological components, although their origin is not confirmed, and several hypothesis are considered. A discussion of the meaning of the term ‘organic preservation’ and a suggestion of criteria that should be met to be described as such is included.



They say the structures are clearly not functional cells and the pictures certainly don't look to me like red blood cells. They do say that it is possible that the structures represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remanents such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products. The authors say they may also be the result of iron concentrating bacteria, fungal spores of diagenetic alteration of cellular debris, which clumped upon death and became complexed with other secondary degradation products by diagenetic processes.


They may have found structures formed from diagenetically altered blood components but they did not find intact red blood cells.



The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[notto]

Why in the world would you think that the layers below the flood would form any different then afterwards.

If a global flood happened at the same time the meteorite struck that laid down the iridium layer, I would expect to find some evidence that the flood actually happened. It seems to me that you are simply claiming it did without any type of evidence that would indicate that it did.

This also leads you to the problem of actually explaining the geology of layers above and below the irridium layer without actually using the flood as a standard creationist expaination. I don't think you can do that because the evidence that we find in these very layers falsifies a young earth and you are also left with no mechanism other than the mechanisms we see happening today forming the geology formations we see. The sedimentation, lithification, erosion and uplift patterns we see in the geology of the earth can only be explained with these current mechanisms if you conclude that they went on for a very long time.

 

[notto]

Notice that the meteor impacts are not random, indicating the concentrated impacts are part of a single event.

You cannot conclude that the meteor impacts are not random based on the evidence you provided. The pattern that we find them in may be concentrated but that may be due to the fact that areas that they are not found (south america, asia, and central africa) haven't been explored to look or that erosion eliminated may of the impact cites in these areas.

You are making a claim outside of the reliability of the data.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why in the world would you think that the layers below the flood would form any different then afterwards.

The during the flood part might be kind of complicated though.



What would you expect to be different?

And there are differences.

Be aware the I asked these questions myself.

You may not want to find what you will find.



The best explaination I have heard which explains the iridium layer is a meteor strike.

The Earth went through some geological turmoil and radioactive materials were dispersed on the Earths surface.

The expected results are earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, and atmospheric climatic changes.

Oh, and a lot of dead things all at once.

My personal opnion was developed after looking a the meteor impact distribution at this site.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/CILocSort.html


Notice that the meteor impacts are not random, indicating the concentrated impacts are part of a single event.

The estimated equivalent megaton total from the meteor creator record is about 12,000 times the current nuclear arsenal of the world.

The next question of course is what does an event of this sort do to the slow gradual assumptions normally applied to Earth history theory.

Duane

One thing they do is falsify YEC since if all the meteor strikes we see and all those that must have fallen in the oceans had occured during the short time that YECs allow for existence of the earth, it would be a very different place, probably without life. Of course there were a lot more meteor strikes during the bombardment of the inner solar system that left all those lunar craters, It is estimated that earth was hit by thousands of object the size of the Chixalub impactor and many others up to 10 times that size. Of course that was 3.9 billion years ago so there was no one around to be wiped out.

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

BTW, the idea that a uniform layer of fine meteorite dust somehow settled out all over the earth during a raging global flood is pretty strange. The impacts are not random for two reasons, their evidence is lost in geological unstable areas with active mountain building or in areas of extensive erosion and 2. They are not found in areas that have been explored less such as equatorial Africa and the Amazon. The Chixulub impact crater was only recently discovered after all. There may be many more out there to find.

FB

 

[notto]

BTW, the idea that a uniform layer of fine meteorite dust somehow settled out all over the earth during a raging global flood is pretty strange. The impacts are not random for two reasons, their evidence is lost in geological unstable areas with active mountain building or in areas of extensive erosion and 2. They are not found in areas that have been explored less such as equatorial Africa and the Amazon. The Chixulub impact crater was only recently discovered after all. There may be many more out there to find.

FB

It's also interesting to note that these impacts are fairly distributed above and below the layer. If the all happened at the same time, I would not expect this.

 

[TheBear]

I remember hilking on the South Rim of Grand Canyon several years back. About a mile straight down was the Colorado River, but it looked real small from that elevation. I had to hike down the canyon to get a better look at the river. It was truly a breath-taking and amazing experience. It's just one of those place where you have to be there. I highly recommend visiting the Grand Canyon, to everyone.


Glaciers have done their part gorging up a lot of that land over the last billion years. Also, the surrounding region is arid and sandy. In-between the ice ages, tens of thousands of years of wind/sand erosion did it's part in shaping the landscape too. And the Colorado River is doing it's part too.

If this was the result of a global flood, the Grand Canyon should be rich with fossils of animals and plants not indigenous to North America. I haven't found any yet. Have you?